Judge Urges Pa. Appellate Courts to Reconsider Defamation Venue Rules for the Internet Age
Philadelphia Judge Arnold New issued an opinion in Fox v. Smith finding that the alleged victim of an online smear campaign could sue in Philadelphia, even though she is a resident of Delaware County—a move that could lead to a shift away from case law dating back more than 50 years.
September 10, 2018 at 04:44 PM
4 minute read
In an age where online smear campaigns and so-called “fake news” can be viewed all across the country, where is the proper venue for plaintiffs to sue if they believe they've been the victim of false and defamatory information spread over the internet?
That is the question a Philadelphia judge has posed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in a case that might lead to a shift away from case law dating back more than 50 years.
Click here to read the opinion
Late last month, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New issued an opinion in Fox v. Smith finding that the alleged victim of an online smear campaign could sue in Philadelphia, even though she is a resident of Delaware County and the defendants contend that the information had been aimed to Delaware County residents.
As part of his ruling, New asked the appellate courts in Pennsylvania to consider revamping case law from 1967 that, he said, “lags” behind the times.
“In the 51 years since Gaetano [v. Sharon Herald] was decided, technology drastically changed the way in which we communicate, yet the venue rules related to defamation have remained stagnant,” New wrote in his seven-page opinion issued Aug. 30. “This court humbly requests a re-evaluation of these principals in relationship to the internet, social media and the technology of the modern era.”
Fox stems from the 2017 mayoral campaign for Chester Heights, which is in Delaware County, about 20 miles outside of Philadelphia.
According to New, plaintiff Joy Michelle Fox had been the Democratic candidate running against Stacey Smith, who had been on the Republican ticket. Smith ended up beating Fox in the general election.
However, according to the allegations, during the campaign, Smith and several other defendants created a website and a campaign flyer that defamed Fox by saying she faced criminal charges for passing worthless checks.
Fox contended that the defendants “cherry-picked” information from three background search websites that had given results for “Joyce Watkins,” who had been charged for passing bad checks in North Carolina. However, according to Fox's allegations, the information described the wrong person. Although Fox's maiden name is Watkins, her first name is not Joyce, but Joy.
Fox alleged that the defendants promoted the website using social media and billboards in Chester Heights, and that the campaign flyers were mailed to Chester Heights residents.
According to the allegations, Fox told the defendants that the information was false on several occasions, but the defendants “refused to take down the website or otherwise remove the defamatory information.”
Fox sued in February in Philadelphia, contending that the campaign flyers were processed at a bulk mail facility in Philadelphia, and that the defamatory information was accessible to people in Philadelphia, including a friend of Fox's.
The defendants filed preliminary objections, arguing that Philadelphia was not the proper venue. Smith contended that they did not aim the online information at Philadelphians, but rather at Delaware County residents, and that the purpose of a defamation action is to restore a person's name in the community where they live. The defendants further contended that following Fox's logic would mean venue would be proper in any of the state's 67 counties, since a friend or relative could access the information from anywhere in the state.
Although New said that federal courts generally agree with the defendant's position, he said Pennsylvania case law, dating back more than 50 years, allows Fox to bring her suit in Philadelphia, given that her friend had read the allegedly defamatory online information while in Philadelphia.
Specifically, New cited Gaetano, which was decided in 1967, and said, for the purposes of a defamation action, “publication” occurs in the county where the statement is read and understood to be defamatory.
“Therefore, under Pennsylvania law, as set forth in Gaetano, venue is proper in Philadelphia because Philadelphia is where the defamatory statement was read and understood to be defamatory of plaintiff,” New said.
However, after stressing that his task as a judge is to only apply the law, rather than “make new law,” he urged the higher courts in Pennsylvania to re-evaluate these principles in light of the technological advances since 1967.
Both Rawle & Henderson attorney Daniel Rucket, who is representing Smith, and Bryan Lentz of Bochetto & Lentz, who is representing Fox, did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readPa. Superior Court's Next Leader Looks Ahead to Looming Challenges in Coming Years
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250